Prioritizing Plans At Fairfield Hills—

Baseball Diamond Gets Priority At FFH

By Kendra Bobowick

The ten athletic fields described in the Fairfield Hills Master Plan have been scaled back to one priority 90-foot baseball field in the immediate scope of work, according to Fairfield Hills Authority Chairman Robert Geckle.

“We went back to Parks and Recreation and said we wanted to get started and can’t do it all now, we need to set priorities,” he explained. A 90-foot field topped Parks and Recreation’s list.

Acting recreation Chairman Edward Marks said the baseball diamond is what is needed the most, and the soonest.

The Parks and Recreation Commission had spoken with various athletic representatives several years ago, forming a picture of the town’s future field-space needs.

“A consensus was the 90-foot field was a priority, other needs are down the road,” Mr Marks said.

Parks and Recreation members are flexible with the amount and placement of fields, as they had been when the master plan was coming together. He also noted that the fields listed in the master plan were not necessarily going to be new.

“Some fields are a replacement of existing fields,” he said. Space now in use as soccer or softball fields could be renovated for multipurpose activities.

“We never saw ten new fields; we saw that as the total after all was said and done,” Mr Marks said.

Roughly five years ago when the Fairfield Hills Ad Hoc Committee put plans together Mr Geckle explained, “We came up with a number of fields for different types of uses.”

The plan states: “The playing fields including four multipurpose fields, two full-size baseball fields, two softball fields and two youth baseball fields and the retention of two existing youth baseball fields [were] established in consultation with the Parks and Recreation Commission.”

Mr Geckle also clarified that at no time were there any stipulations to complete all the fields at once.

The master plan’s preview for playing fields also specifies: “The fields can be constructed in a sequence and within a schedule to meet the priorities of the Parks and Recreation Commission and users as well as coordinated with other demolition and construction activities proposed in the master plan.”

The number of fields to eventually occupy the campus may also change.

Mr Geckle said, “Just because five years ago they said they needed [ten] fields…now they are looking at the best way to proceed — what’s most cost-effective.”

Mr Marks discussed factors that could alter how many fields were ultimately necessary. The recreation department is also aware that turf, lighting, and school space are also parts of the field space equation.

“Depending on what may transpire with [artificial] turf at Fairfield Hills or elsewhere [our] needs may change, we may get by with less,” Mr Marks said.

As an example, he explained that two 90-foot fields had been a priority, but the prospect of lighting may eliminate the need for a second field.

Also, the master plan allows for the possibility of school use in years to come.

Mr Marks said, “Down the road may be fields associated with a school…it may take care of some fields.”

As of several weeks ago the authority moved to begin work on one ball field, trails, demolition of one building, and temporary parking. These projects are now in an engineering phase as of the authority’s last meeting.

“We’re trying now to do one [field] and move forward,” Mr Geckle said. He explained that the authority is eyeing a rough estimate of $600,000 for this field, which includes engineering.

“We know this is one of the more expensive fields,” he said, further indicating that cost estimates are not yet 100 percent refined.

“Other [fields] are to be done at later dates when needed,” Mr Geckle said.

As the authority “moves through the priorities,” he considered specifically what would happen if the allotted $21-plus million for the initial phases of the campus development is not enough to cover the hoped-for projects — including the approximately $2 million for playing field work as detailed in the original 2001 town meeting vote to purchase Fairfield Hills.

Mr Geckle noted that $21 million does not go as far now as it did in 2001.

“Time has passed; I think we need to be creative with finding sources of funds to keep moving the master plan forward,” he said. “I do know the costs have increased since the estimates were made. We’ll consider it from there. We’re continuing to look for grants, for example, and other funds for this project. We need to be creative with funds too.”

First Selectman Herb Rosenthal remembers back to the referendum when the public approved spending $21.8 million on Fairfield Hills. He said that constraints were established when preparing the bond package. Sums for assorted projects, including the playing fields, were preliminary estimates only, and the roughly $2 million for fields was essentially a spending cap.

Mr Rosenthal explained that the estimate is not all that is allowed for fields, and the cap could be raised.

“If they can increase the cap out of the $21 million they could use the Fairfield Hills money,” he said. The Legislative Council and Board of Selectmen would need to approve the move, however. Otherwise, the Fairfield Hills Authority would have to look at grants for example and seek funding in other ways.

He did express that costs are larger than expected.

“We’re finding that the cost of fields is a lot higher than initial estimates,” Mr Rosenthal said.

As the master plan and estimates took shape several years ago, Mr Marks said he knew the numbers were “optimistic.”

“We knew the estimates were not necessarily realistic, we know we’re going to have to come up with finances at Fairfield Hills,” he said.

The master plan details an estimated $1.8 million in construction and design costs for playing fields. Outlined are design costs for the playing fields and town hall at $800,000, construct playing fields (four multipurpose and two 90-foot baseball) at $600,000, constructing two youth baseball at $200,000 and two youth softball at $200,000. Engineering costs are also included in these figures.

Five years ago, taxpayers passed a $21.8 million package for the purchase of Fairfield Hills and associated projects. One hundred eighty-six acres of former state hospital territory now belongs to the town. A larger balance of 336 acres remains with the state. The town meeting vote approved a variety of activities detailed in the master plan. Clearly described are several themes outlined in the opening pages including the statement that the campus should contain a substantial open space component inclusive of both active playing fields and passive open space.

Mr Geckle said the roughly $21 million bonded sum includes the 186-acre purchase, remediation, a town hall, fields, demolitions, and more.

He said, “We would have to meet with the appropriate parties.”

Mr Geckle also explained that much of the acreage acquired in the Fairfield Hills purchase is marked for playing fields, open space, or to be land banked. The master plan clarifies: “The specific use of these areas will be decided over several decades…”